Guan, good to have you back. Hope you were blessed with the Lenten season and His resurrection.
Well, yes, we practice excommunication too. So I know what you mean. Rather, that the doctrines that were formulated with Augsburg had no warrant, canonically, to call for excommunication.
Yes and no. Since sola scriptura is a hermeneutic and not a doctrine, it doesn’t call for disobedience to clerical authority. Only in those cases where the authority is outside of the scriptural and catholic tradition, which is what the reformers felt was the case in that situation, does it call for disobedience. The Lutherans did not disobey Roman authority because they felt Rome had no authority. They disobeyed Rome because they felt Rome had abused its authority.
That he is does not have the ability to err when speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals?
Good to “see” you Jon!
Because without grace, good works are not possible. Therefore, it not only Scripturally precedes good works, it precedes good works logically as well.
This is an interesting statement. I suspect that the Catholic authorities of the time would consider that any doctrines formulated apart from them would actually be the fruit of an excommunication that had already occurred.
I have also recently come to understand that the nature of SS is also being redefined. It is much easier to defend as a practice than it is as a doctrine, and by refraining from calling it a doctrine, the arguement need not be engaged that it was a doctrine created at the Reformation that was not embraced by the Apostles.
This is well said, and cannot be argued. The exercise of abuses by Catholics in positions of authority was truly rampant and despicable. I daresay to the point that it was impossible to discern any rightful authority, or the proper exercise of it. The Roman Church brought this upon itself, placing, promoting, and preserving corrupt persons in positions of ecclesial authority.
Ok, just wanted to check that, because there are often misunderstandings about what infallibility means.
Hi Gary,
Gotcha.I just don’t see any way around Faith/Works/Grace which isn’t to say God can’t do as he wills by Faith. I see Faith/Works as the equation with leads to Santifying Grace.
I don’t see. I hear you, show me now.
Well I am a Calvinist…
The problem that is introduced, however, is that when the clergy of Luther’s day (before Trent) accused Luther of formulating new doctrines, they didn’t have much of a dogmatic leg to stand on, at least as regards justification. As you know, there were no dogmatic pronouncements on the doctrine for the reformers to separate from. I know that Catholics disagree with the evidence that the belief of the reformers has a tradition within the faith that stretches back to the patristics. But regardless, it was there enough for the reformers to present evidence of it. In short, without going into detail for sake of brevity, a multiplicity of ideas around justification were present before Luther. All of these existed without any need for the clergy to excommunicate its adherents. The tempestuousness of the Reformation period is what fueled this response to the reformers, I believe. Add to that the politics of the Holy Roman Empire, and it was just begging to all go wrong.
It’s never been redefined among us. The only statement our confessions make in regard to the matter is that the teachings of all men, councils, traditions, etc. are subject to agreement with Scripture. It may be being redefined amongst certain other groups of Protestants. I don’t know. But that’s their responsibility.
Of course, the disagreement is not that God cannot work through men in the church in the means of infallibility. But whether or not He actually did in the case of the post-apostolic church.Catholics believe that Jesus meant to preserve His One Body, and His Bride from falling into error, and thus, when He promised to guide her into “All Truth” gave His Spirit to guarantee that outcome. We believe He worked through His Church infallibly to write, preserve, promulgate and canonize the Holy Scriptures, the most well known act of infalliblity.
I absolve you!Well I am a Calvinist…
Hey Jon,
If we all absolve each other we should be OK no?
Yes. Unless the Calvinators believe they are predetermined not to be absolved.If we all absolve each other we should be OK no?
How can there BE any good works without grace?
Yes. This might be a point of difference between the Catholic and Lutheran positions. What I understand the Lutheran to be saying is that one does not grow in sanctifying grace. It is either present or not.
It was a construct designed to combat the prevalent notion among Catholics at the time of the Reformation that one had to earn one’s way into heaven by doing good works, or by paying for indulgences. Granted, these practices were never Catholic teaching in the first place, but they were ramapant in the poorly educated European societies where they gave fuel to the fire of the Reformation.I see something off in the faith alone justifies theory.
I just don’t see any way around Faith/Works/Grace which isn’t to say God can’t do as he wills by Faith. I see Faith/Works as the equation with leads to Santifying Grace.
Whille we were still dead in our sins, He loved us, and gave His life for us. There is nothing we can do to “qualify” for his sanctifying grace. It is a free gift.
In Eastern theology, the good works that God ordained that we should walk in throughout our lives are not separated from the grace that justifies us, and creates in us the ability to do them. The “separation” of justification, sanctification, and glorification is a protestant artifact that is not found prior to 1500.
Yes, this is true with regard to those who are alive and in the world after baptism. But, for those who are unable to do good works, such as infants, the disabled and the martyred, they are not “required” to enter heaven by means of the sanctifying grace received in baptism.